Hindsight's always 20/20, of course, but with retirement ahead of them, what's the rush? Departing NY in the wake of a January blizzard, I think I'd have been inclined to head down the coast, and spend the winter in the Bahamas, for starters... though I'm no big fan of cruising multihulls, one could certainly have a ton of fun poking around the Bahamas in a boat like that...

Charlie Doane has posted his account on his blog, it's a pretty compelling read... Credit the owners, far from being the potential weak link aboard, it certainly sounds like they're made of the Right Stuff, and acquitted themselves admirably, as well... All things considered, it did seem like a pretty damn problematic situation...

Two things jump out at me from my initial reading (conceding, of course, that Charlie's account has obviously been written under some duress, and perhaps more hastily than he would prefer, and should not be taken as entirely complete)...

I'm a bit surprised that no decision appears to have been taken, at the first sign of battery charging problems from both the generator, or one of the engines... Not knowing their exact position at that time, but that would have been an immediate deal-breaker for me... Either resolve the issue then and there (especially on an boat without solar, wind, or other means of charging independent of a genset or engine), or go to a Plan B, and divert to the Chesapeake Entrance or wherever, to effect a repair to resolve the issue... Once again, seems very reminiscent of the WOLFHOUND incident a year ago, where they pressed on despite knowing they had a charging issue... (Again, I'd like to acknowledge the possibility that Charlie's write-up may simply be incomplete, or lacking details about this particular issue, or the exact timing of it, etc.)

Secondly... the tiller arms were fixed to the rudder posts WITH FREAKIN' SET SCREWS ???

Has anyone heard of a monohull with a skeg hung rudder that was pushed backwards and snapped the rudder? How strong is strong enough?

The skeg has nothing to do with it neither it offers protection in this case. When the boat is violently pushed backwards the wheel goes to one side and the force that is made against the rudder blade can be a breaking one, no matter the type of rudder. Boats are not designed to go backwards at full speed, much less the rudders.

Yeah, keep ignoring the fact that the PERCENTAGE of boats lost in the 2011 NARC Rally was considerably higher... Sorry, but you're better at gymnastics, than math... :-)

Then, there's the matter of the recent fatalities in both the 1500 and NARC within the past 3 years... They own that record.

So, despite your inability to offer ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any of these incidents can be attributed to "Inexperience" (the examples I've cited indicate quite the opposite, as a matter of fact), you continue to insist that issue is somehow unique to the SDR...

The stated "Bar to Entry" is no lower for the SDR, than for the 1500... Completion of a "Bluewater Passage" for the former, a "Passage of at least 250 miles" for the latter. If anything, the bar seems set lower for the 1500, to me... Unless you can offer evidence that the organizers of the SDR admitted applicants who did not meet those stated qualifications, you really should cease making this assertion... And, as I've alluded to before, Hank shared an anecdote in an email which casts a wholly different light on how 'strict' the 1500 has been in the past, when it came to acceptance of an entry... Dave/Auspicious was copied the same email, he could confirm...

Also, the NARC does not conduct a 'Safety Inspection', either... But, the SDR "owns" that issue, as well, right? Again, despite your inability to offer ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any of the SAR incidents in the SDR were attributable IN ANY WAY to the lack of said inspections, you continue to believe what you want to believe...

Or, are we to suppose that all those OTHER crews far less experienced than the boats I've cited above - who successfully completed their passages - are the ones that are supposed to be indicative of the problems that the SDR has with "Inexperienced" participants in their rally?

Seriously, as one wag commented over on SA, you need to get a bigger shovel... :-)

I can't really keep up with your wild spinning of things across all these different rallies. If you don't like the way they are set up, start a thread on them and critique them. This thread is about the SDR. So, let me keep it very simple.

Among all the rallies under discussion, the SDR is the ONLY rally to my knowledge to have the following combination:

1. A low bar to entry for this kind of trip (a single bluewater passage).
2. No mandatory safety regulations (e.g. - ISAF-based, etc.)
3. No safety inspections.
4. No required level of skipper/crew training, and very limited supplemental training opportunities via the rally itself (e.g. - a single 1-day seminar for a limited number of participants).
5. It's free.

Additionally, the SDR is indisputably the ONLY rally to have the following outcome:

Now, how ever you want to try to justify the above facts against any other rally by picking and choosing line items - or requiring Bigfootesque "causal proof" of specific items that is not yet available for anyone to provide. Knock yourself out. But none of that matters to the issue of this thread and the above facts.

My point is and has always been that the SDR is, without question, the ONLY rally we've been discussing to have the above combination of protocols and failures. And this is undoubtedly a bad combination any way you try to slice it.

With the USCG's making an example of the outcome of the SDR specifically as follows...

Quote:

In a recent offshore regatta [that would be the SDR, not any other rally you mention above], numerous sailboats experienced steering system and other failures which required assistance and/or rescue by the U. S. Coast Guard when a weather system stalled offshore creating higher than expected sea states and winds. The Coast Guard responded using an array of assets to render assistance.

Offshore sailing requires special knowledge, skills, and abilities. Vessel equipment and components must be thoroughly checked before getting underway and periodically while at sea. The offshore domain’s remoteness adds a negative dynamic to survivability concerns. Preparation is key to minimizing misfortune.

...AND laying out "strong recommendations" that certainly seem to buttress my view (and which are much more in line with the other rallies' protocol), your defense of the SDR status-quo is certainly growing more and more out of touch.

I can't really keep up with your wild spinning of things across all these different rallies. If you don't like the way they are set up, start a thread on them and critique them. This thread is about the SDR. So, let me keep it very simple.

Among all the rallies under discussion, the SDR is the ONLY rally to my knowledge to have the following combination:

1. A low bar to entry for this kind of trip (a single bluewater passage).
2. No mandatory safety regulations (e.g. - ISAF-based, etc.)
3. No safety inspections.
4. No required level of skipper/crew training, and very limited supplemental training opportunities via the rally itself (e.g. - a single 1-day seminar for a limited number of participants).
5. It's free.

Additionally, the SDR is indisputably the ONLY rally to have the following outcome:

Now, how ever you want to try to justify the above facts against any other rally by picking and choosing line items - or requiring Bigfootesque "causal proof" of specific items that is not yet available for anyone to provide. Knock yourself out. But none of that matters to the issue of this thread and the above facts.

My point is and has always been that the SDR is, without question, the ONLY rally we've been discussing to have the above combination of protocols and failures. And this is undoubtedly a bad combination any way you try to slice it.

With the USCG's making an example of the outcome of the SDR specifically as follows...

...AND laying out "strong recommendations" that certainly seem to buttress my view (and which are much more in line with the other rallies' protocol), your defense of the SDR status-quo is certainly growing more and more out of touch.

Shovel?

Tried to be nice a few times, but I gotta say: I really think you don't know what the **** you are talking about.

Heh-heh. You don't have to be nice, Stink. But everything I listed in that post is fact. I don't know how else to put it.

Actually SD, maybe you should reconsider (among other things) the value in being "nice".

Facts huh . . .. Sounds more like crap to me.

The biggest problem I have is that you don't know a damn thing about what you are talking about. You have not participated in a rally and you have not undertaken an offshore passage. The stream of people who do know *a lot* about these things you simply ignore (or worse you glom onto them as "differing opinions" who you disingenuously claim to be your counterparts).

Your "statistics" are not even stated as percentages let alone baseline tested. You are just making stuff up.

Your claim that the standard to participate should be higher is "grounded" in an idiotic premise that participants a) will not go offshore without a rally and b) can be judged by some objective standard (which you haven't articulated).
You go back and forth between claiming that there is some nefarious hidden profit motive and then arguing the opposite -- claiming that the "real problem" is that the rally is free.

You have no basis to assert that the standards you claim are lacking have *anything* to do with the troubles some participants encountered -- in fact everything we know suggests otherwise.

There is no shortage of dumb sheet on the sailing forums and it is mostly irrelevant or entertaining. The only reason your posts piss me off is that there might just be someone somewhere who actually has some authority who reads you crap and acts upon it. And you have neither sailed offshore nor participated in a rally and you are making all of these assertions about rally participants -- which almost all of the rally participants (and not inconsequentially -- although you seem to miss this -- other offshore sailors)

Despite all that, you just remain belligerent. That is a shame. You lack the qualifications and the facts to advocate for restricting other people's choices regarding rallies -- particularly over their objections. You also seem to lack the judgement necessary to present the sort of nuanced overview this issue requires. Maybe if you look for something other than being "right" you'll have more value.

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.